FAI...New Manager is Heimir Hallgrimsson

[Taylor]

I am more shocked that anyone is surprised at this.

Football is a business now - it isnt about loyalty or anything like it.

The two drunk drivers are worth money so they wouldnt sack them.

Keogh should and will get money for unfair dismissal (unless something specific in his contract) but I assume they have worked it out that it will be cheaper to pay him off rather than him finish his career on the bench.

[David McKeown]

I am more shocked that anyone is surprised at this.

Football is a business now - it isnt about loyalty or anything like it.

The two drunk drivers are worth money so they wouldnt sack them.

Keogh should and will get money for unfair dismissal (unless something specific in his contract) but I assume they have worked it out that it will be cheaper to pay him off rather than him finish his career on the bench.

I'd be very surprised if it was. I doubt agents lawyers etc would allow players to sign what would effectively be non guaranteed contracts.

[Itchy]

I am more shocked that anyone is surprised at this.

Football is a business now - it isnt about loyalty or anything like it.

The two drunk drivers are worth money so they wouldnt sack them.

Keogh should and will get money for unfair dismissal (unless something specific in his contract) but I assume they have worked it out that it will be cheaper to pay him off rather than him finish his career on the bench.

Thats true, but normally they like to publicly masquerade as being loyal to captains, long serving players and fans. Of course its all shite. Even your average soccer fan down the pub in Derby is sure to see this for what it is, a cruel calculated financial decision.

[Baile Brigín 2]

I am more shocked that anyone is surprised at this.

Football is a business now - it isnt about loyalty or anything like it.

The two drunk drivers are worth money so they wouldnt sack them.

Keogh should and will get money for unfair dismissal (unless something specific in his contract) but I assume they have worked it out that it will be cheaper to pay him off rather than him finish his career on the bench.

Thats true, but normally they like to publicly masquerade as being loyal to captains, long serving players and fans. Of course its all shite. Even your average soccer fan down the pub in Derby is sure to see this for what it is, a cruel calculated financial decision.

I think sympathy for him is thin on the ground.

Ultimately he can't play because of off the field stupidity, thats generally sackable in pro sport. The pay cut offer is strange and does muddy things

[Itchy]

I am more shocked that anyone is surprised at this.

Football is a business now - it isnt about loyalty or anything like it.

The two drunk drivers are worth money so they wouldnt sack them.

Keogh should and will get money for unfair dismissal (unless something specific in his contract) but I assume they have worked it out that it will be cheaper to pay him off rather than him finish his career on the bench.

Thats true, but normally they like to publicly masquerade as being loyal to captains, long serving players and fans. Of course its all shite. Even your average soccer fan down the pub in Derby is sure to see this for what it is, a cruel calculated financial decision.

I think sympathy for him is thin on the ground.

Ultimately he can't play because of off the field stupidity, thats generally sackable in pro sport. The pay cut offer is strange and does muddy things

No one is questioning that but I think we all know he would not have been sacked if he was say 25 years old.

[rodney trotter]

He wasn't  sacked initially, he, was given the offer of reduced wages while out injured , declined, so they sacked him. Why would Derby pay his full wages for over a year in a injury which happened when he was drunk? At least Lawrence can contribute on the field and is an asset. As is the other fella.

[Ball Hopper]

Do clubs insure players wages against season ending injuries?

[Capt Pat]

Keogh didn't do anything wrong. He did get drunk but that did not cause the injury. It was the drink driving of his team mate that caused the accident and injury? Why hasn't that team mate been fired? Derby are being chancers in this instance. They have no right to fire Keogh.

[Itchy]

He wasn't  sacked initially, he, was given the offer of reduced wages while out injured , declined, so they sacked him. Why would Derby pay his full wages for over a year in a injury which happened when he was drunk? At least Lawrence can contribute on the field and is an asset. As is the other fella.

Injury wasnt caused by him being drunk. This is a clear black and white case of unfair dismissal but its probably cheaper to pay for the inevitable losses in court rather than pay his wages.

[Ball Hopper]

He wasn't  sacked initially, he, was given the offer of reduced wages while out injured , declined, so they sacked him. Why would Derby pay his full wages for over a year in a injury which happened when he was drunk? At least Lawrence can contribute on the field and is an asset. As is the other fella.

Injury wasnt caused by him being drunk. This is a clear black and white case of unfair dismissal but its probably cheaper to pay for the inevitable losses in court rather than pay his wages.

I presume he can sue the driver(s) for the lost wages? 

[marty34]

I heard on radio today that he was on £24k a week - that's decent £ for that league.
If he's out injured for 18mths (at his age) that's sum wage bill for Derby to fork out.  He was captain, the club organised cars but they stayed on for more drinks.  Crazy stuff.
Any club should have it in contract that any messing about - this is a prime example, then they get the boot.
But thing that got me was he can't drive - is that strange or is thst just me?

[David McKeown]

He wasn't  sacked initially, he, was given the offer of reduced wages while out injured , declined, so they sacked him. Why would Derby pay his full wages for over a year in a injury which happened when he was drunk? At least Lawrence can contribute on the field and is an asset. As is the other fella.

Injury wasnt caused by him being drunk. This is a clear black and white case of unfair dismissal but its probably cheaper to pay for the inevitable losses in court rather than pay his wages.

Im not sure it's quite black and white. He was club captain, he defied orders from the team, as far as I can read he knowingly got into a car with someone he knew had been drinking, I've also read the two cars involved were horse playing with each other resulting in the accident. When all that's taken into account there's at least an arguable case for Gross Misconduct there. The problem as I see it for Derby is they didn't decide that gross misconduct should result in dismissal until he refused a wage reduction. That significantly reduces their argument I feel.

[David McKeown]

He wasn't  sacked initially, he, was given the offer of reduced wages while out injured , declined, so they sacked him. Why would Derby pay his full wages for over a year in a injury which happened when he was drunk? At least Lawrence can contribute on the field and is an asset. As is the other fella.

Injury wasnt caused by him being drunk. This is a clear black and white case of unfair dismissal but its probably cheaper to pay for the inevitable losses in court rather than pay his wages.

I presume he can sue the driver(s) for the lost wages?

Any claimant has a duty to mitigate their loss and the loss would have to be a direct result of the injury. So in this case he may find it difficult. I imagine Derby are claiming the reason he was dismissed was his actions, staying late, getting into a car with someone who had been drinking etc rather than the injury so it may be difficult for Keogh to prove that certainly he will likely have to fight his dismissal first. On top of that assuming what I've read is true and he knew the driver was drinking then he will be at least 20% contributorily liable. 

[macdanger2]

He wasn't  sacked initially, he, was given the offer of reduced wages while out injured , declined, so they sacked him. Why would Derby pay his full wages for over a year in a injury which happened when he was drunk? At least Lawrence can contribute on the field and is an asset. As is the other fella.

Injury wasnt caused by him being drunk. This is a clear black and white case of unfair dismissal but its probably cheaper to pay for the inevitable losses in court rather than pay his wages.

Im not sure it's quite black and white. He was club captain, he defied orders from the team, as far as I can read he knowingly got into a car with someone he knew had been drinking, I've also read the two cars involved were horse playing with each other resulting in the accident. When all that's taken into account there's at least an arguable case for Gross Misconduct there. The problem as I see it for Derby is they didn't decide that gross misconduct should result in dismissal until he refused a wage reduction. That significantly reduces their argument I feel.

Surely Derbys argument is wiped out by not charging the actual drunk drivers with misconduct also?

[Never beat the deeler]

He wasn't  sacked initially, he, was given the offer of reduced wages while out injured , declined, so they sacked him. Why would Derby pay his full wages for over a year in a injury which happened when he was drunk? At least Lawrence can contribute on the field and is an asset. As is the other fella.

Injury wasnt caused by him being drunk. This is a clear black and white case of unfair dismissal but its probably cheaper to pay for the inevitable losses in court rather than pay his wages.

Im not sure it's quite black and white. He was club captain, he defied orders from the team, as far as I can read he knowingly got into a car with someone he knew had been drinking, I've also read the two cars involved were horse playing with each other resulting in the accident. When all that's taken into account there's at least an arguable case for Gross Misconduct there. The problem as I see it for Derby is they didn't decide that gross misconduct should result in dismissal until he refused a wage reduction. That significantly reduces their argument I feel.

Surely Derbys argument is wiped out by not charging the actual drunk drivers with misconduct also?

These seem to be the key questions.

Isn't there an onus on the club to show that any disciplinary measures are fairly applied across the board?
If it is gross misconduct, they wouldn't (shouldn't) have offered the wage reduction although I'm sure this would have been carefully worded. It may have been a 'without predjudice' offer in recognition of previous service or something of the sort